Friday, March 23, 2012

On The Treyvon Martin Shooting

This seems to have become the story of the day. I planned on writing in detail about this, but there are two pieces I'll link to later that pretty much capture my views on the matter, so I'm going to limit myself to writing about a particularly disgusting aspect - the way America's premier race pimps and opportunists have swarmed on this like pigs to a troth.And sadly, the president of the United States has joined them , reversing a previously more balanced stance, perhaps because it's a useful distraction in an election year.

The facts of the case are fairly simple.There was a confrontation of some kind between Treyvon Martin, a black teenager and George Zimmerman, a Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer.

During whatever occurred, Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, who had called the police prior to the shooting. Zimmerman claimed that he was in fear of his life and had fired in self defense, which is legal in Florida and a number of other states. Martin was unarmed.

Since the police knew Zimmerman, who had provided them with info on local crime a number of times, they accepted his story after an investigation, which apparently was fairly cursory.

Rather than treating this as the tragedy it is, having it investigated properly and letting the justice system do its work, a number of the usual suspects have smelled a bonanza for themselves and are involved in creating racially based agitation, even to the point of inciting violence.

Al Sharpton, a man responsible for a pogrom in Crown Heights and the murder of several people among his other exploits reveled in heading a rally, where he stopped just short of telling people they had a right to riot over the killing. He'll undoubtedly save that just in case a jury comes up with the 'wrong' verdict for Zimmerman.

Significantly, Jackson also targeted the laws in Florida and other states that give people the right to defend themselves when attacked.

Worst of all in some ways was President Obama, who declared that if he had a son,"it would look like Treyvon Martin" and emphasized the racial aspect of the incident. Aside from the asininity of a president of the United States being clueless enough to be commenting on a pending case, there were a number of other problems with what the president had to say about this tragedy.

Would it have been different, as the president implied, if the dead teenager were white, or Hispanic or Asian? Or does the president see this case through a racial prism, as he has with so many other matters?

As far as I'm concerned, those whom are taking advantage of this tragic incident are guilty of a horrid injustice to us all.

I have sat back and allowed myself time to assess the current episode revealing itself in Sanford, Florida involving the shooting of 17-year-old Treyvon Martin. First of all, if all that has been reported is accurate, the Sanford Police Chief should be relieved of his duties due to what appears to be a mishandling of this shooting in its early stages. The US Navy SEALS identified Osama Bin Laden within hours, while this young man laid on a morgue slab for three days. The shooter, Mr Zimmerman, should have been held in custody and certainly should not be walking free, still having a concealed weapons carry permit. From my reading, it seems this young man was pursued and there was no probable cause to engage him, certainly not pursue and shoot him…against the direction of the 911 responder. Let’s all be appalled at this instance not because of race, but because a young American man has lost his life, seemingly, for no reason. I have signed a letter supporting a DOJ investigation. I am not heading to Sanford to shout and scream, because we need the responsible entities and agencies to handle this situation from this point without media bias or undue political influences. This is an outrage.

3. Most of the time, stories like the one I just linked are not reported by the media, for various reasons. One is that, alas, black on white crime is so common as to be not newsworthy, whereas the reverse is rare and hence, oddly, makes national news.

Another reason is that such stories are, by their nature, inflammatory (no pun intended, of course).

But the media does not mind inflammatory stories when the right people are inflamed. Farrakhan, for example, states that "soon and very soon" the "law of retaliation" "may be applied."

Now, if that story about the black kids setting the white kid on fire -- while declaring "You're white, this is what you deserve" -- was excessively inflammatory, why the media rush to inflame further black on white violence?

4. The cops acted predictably and understandably in not arresting Zimmerman. Here are the facts, as they knew them at the time: Zimmerman was a law-abiding citizen who gave them lots of (correct) tips about local crime. He was helpful to the police (probably also annoying in being too vigilant -- but while such people may annoy the police, they nevertheless appreciate the help that comes with the annoyance).

He called in to 911 to report a "suspicious" character, then followed him, waiting for police to arrive. Eventually there was some violence (Zimmerman was reportedly bloodied) and he claimed self-defense.

Now, under those circumstances, the police are not going to be very suspicious of Zimmerman. If he was attempting a murder, he went about it in a strange way -- calling police to arrive at the scene of the crime before there was a crime. He had no known motive against this Trayvon Martin fellow -- they'd never met.

Why suspect a deliberate murder?

That doesn't make Zimmerman innocent -- but it does explain why the police thought he was likely innocent of wrongdoing.

5. If the facts are as the media reports them, then it does seem like Zimmerman was following around a kid who wasn't doing anything illegal at all. Then again, if the facts were as the media reported them, the Duke Lacrosse Team was guilty of violent gang-rape.

While the liberal media screams, once again, "Trust us, and forget all about our hitting the Panic Button time and time again before!," some of us would like to see what the facts really are before coming to a conclusion.

6. As a general matter, and inescapably, the law of self-defense is a very thorny thicket. The media would like to simplify the law and simply declare that anyone who shoots anyone else is guilty of murder (because they would like to ban all guns, period, and this is a cutesy manner of achieving that goal through the back-door).

But these laws are inescapably thorny and these cases are inescapably very dependent on actual facts.

At the heart of every self-defense case are a pair of related questions: Did the defendant reasonably believe his safety was in jeopardy when he struck the fatal blow? And, based on the circumstances, did the defendant act lawfully, within the accepted safe-harbors for the use of lethal force in defending one's life (or another's life)?

Facts, not ginned up racial outrage or general anti-gun animus, answer these questions.

Given what we think we know (and remember, the media has lied before): it appears that the kid was unarmed, the guy can't rely on self-defense to save his life.

Further, it appears (again, appears) that Zimmerman initiated the contact/confrontation, not the kid, so the "stand your ground" law is not even relevant in the case.

Ace has more to say on the matter at the link, but I think you get the general drift.

10 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Well, so much for the law-abiding part. Zimmerman had an injunction filed against him for domestic violence and he has also be arrested for assaulting a police officer. And we're obviously not dealing with a mentally stable person, either. Zimmerman had called 911 46 times since January 2011. You'd think this guy was applying to get his own Bat Signal.

Normally I'd agree that Sharpton and Jackson are opportunists with even the smallest racial slight. But we do need a leader here to rally the masses. When the leading cable channel and the majority of right wing blogs say that this kid deserved it for being black and that this white hispanic (which is what Zimmerman is, incidentally) is just a good Samaritan, we need as much help as we can get.

Do yourself a service and go over to Fox Nation. Read the comments left by the vile and racist readers there. That's what we're up against. I don't care if Al Sharpton or the devil himself has to do it, people need to know.

My understand of why the police chief didn't arrest Zimmerman is the evidence showed that at the time Trayvon was shot the 6'2" football player was sitting on Zimmermans chest punching him in the face.

This event is a clear case of politics. That is the Democrats are stirring up a lynch mob in an attempt to rally their base. Make no mistake there will be violence, riots and perhaps even cities burning as in the L.A. riots just so that the Democrats can rally their base. Zimmerman will be lynched by the racist AG and the media will continue to cover up the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome rapes and murders.

There are now witnesses who claim that Martin, a beefy 6' 2" football player was indeed sitting on top of Zimmerman and punching him out,and that the cries for help heard on the 911 tape from Zimmerman. The police recorded bruises and blood on Zimmerman's face and grass stains on the back of his clothes that seem to corroborate that. There's also the fact that the police played the 911 tapes for Martin's father and he said 'that's not my son' when he heard the cries for help on the tape.

As far as the 'white Hispanic' bit, I'm talking about media references, not a police report. When was the last time you saw someone in the media referred to as a 'white Hispanic'?

I prefer to wait until a full investigation of this is done before rushing to judgement..unlike you and the bigots in the race pimping industry, with their threats of violence unless the 'right verdict' is delivered. Talk about a lynch mob mentality!

My best guess is that Zimmerman used poor judgement in following Martin after the 911 operative told him to stay put and wait for the police,( which means the 'stand your ground' laws don't apply) an altercation occurred between them and we'll have to see what else the investigation uncovers.

As for my opinion on a sitting president of the United States weighing in like this on a pending legal matter and stoking the flames, if you wish to consider that acceptable behavior on his part and a 'slur' on mine, you're certainly entitled.

There are now witnesses who claim that Martin, a beefy 6' 2" football player was indeed sitting on top of Zimmerman and punching him out,and that the cries for help heard on the 911 tape from Zimmerman.

If some fat racist asshole pursued me, I'd also try and beat the shit out of him. If it's true, I'm glad that Trayvon went down fighting. He should have broken the guy's neck. Of course, Rob thinks that a broken nose is equal being shot to death. No surprise there. After all, the kid was black and we all know how Republicans feel about them.

Under the law, yes it is. If you are alone at night and are being pursued by a stranger with a handgun, no court in the country will convict you of murder. But if you pursue another stranger with a handgun, you are guilty of murder. Simple as that. What happened during their confrontation is irrelevant. Zimmerman pursued and killed an unarmed man. That is murder, plain and simple. A jury will also have a tough time equating a bloody nose with a bullet in the chest, followed by a trip to the morgue.

BTW, did you know that Zimmerman and his wife mentored two black kids, even after the funds for the program that sponsored it were cut? Did you know he had black friends?

I wish I could wrap my mind around why you think this is at all relevant. I suppose Republicans get some sort of coupon - mentor 2 black kids and the third one's on us! But what's funny is that you're apparently unaware of the transparency of the "Some of my best friends are..." defense. Though you did use it the other day with your ridiculous notion that you're allowed to be anti-gay because you were best buddies (ha) with Randy Shiltz.

Screw civility at this point. You're a moron, and a malicious one at that.

You have no clue what actually happened, but you're all ready to string somebody up without due process...just like the president you adore.

You're wrong about the laws, first of all. You're not allowed to assault anyone physically whether they're armed or not( and we don't know whether Martin knew Zimmerman was in fact armed). Not only that, but Zimmerman's defense is that he was in fear of his life. We do not know yet whether that was true, but IF it was and a jury determines that, he was LIKELY within his rights to use deadly force. You also assume that he 'pursued' Martin. For all you or I know he might simply have asked him what he was doing, they had words and Martin attacked him.

Or Zimmerman indeed MIGHT have panicked and overreacted. There's also a question of whether excessive force was used by Zimmerman to defend himself IF in fact he was attacked by Martin. That's for a jury to determine, not a racist jerkoff like you, the New Black Panther Party, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton to decide.

I just love the Left's moral equivalence when the 'right victim' is found.

As for Randy Schiltz...you talk exactly like the assholes in SF who insisted on keeping the bathhouses open and taking no steps to contain the AIDS epidemic back when it started. Do you have any idea how many gays died because of the horseshit people with your views peddled?

Well, you finally got the reaction you wanted, so enjoy it, because it's the last one. You know exactly what you can do.

Even if Zimmerman was attacked, his use of deadly force for self-defense may not have been legal. The question is not whether Zimmerman personally thought he was at risk of serious bodily harm, it is whether a jury of his peers think that he was suffering, or about to suffer, serious bodily harm. Mere bodily harm, or substantial bodily harm, are not enough. The law does not allow you to kill someone just because you are losing a fight. You can not use deadly force to avoid a beating - your life has to actually be at risk. (Note you can't just think it's at risk, it has to actually be at risk, otherwise people prone to being scared/paranoia would be more justified in killing than those who weren't). So, the question is, did Martin intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm to Zimmerman? Because if he only intended to cause bodily harm or substantial bodily harm, then the use of lethal force was not legal.

This is what the Florida Division of Licensing advise about use of licensed concealed weapons for self-defense:

"Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force."

Bodily harm: physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

Substantial bodily harm: bodily injury that causes a laceration that requires stitches; any fracture of a bone; a burn; a temporary loss of consciousness, sight or hearing; a concussion; or a loss or fracture of a tooth.

serious bodily harm: jury should be instructed to use its common sense in deciding whether the injuries constitute serious bodily injury. Among the factors the jury should consider are whether the victim suffered extreme physical pain, protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, protracted unconsciousness, and significant or substantial internal damage (such as important broken bones)."

The D.A. for the county in question determined that there was not enough evidence to try Zimmerman for manslaughter, let alone murder. There isn't and D.A.s make these determinations all the time. If Martin wasn't black and the killing hadn't attracted the usual race pimps, if the media hadn't 'scripted this' from minute one and if President Obama hadn't weighed in with his disturbing comments,that's where this would have stayed.

There's no way to determine whether Zimmerman was merely losing a fight, as you put it,( and Martin may have simply attacked him unprovoked, we don't know) or in fear of his life. If you have a beefy football player far bigger than you are pounding your head into the pavement and punching you and if, as Zimmerman says, Martin made a move towards his gun, a jury composed of prudent people might very well conclude he acted in self defense.

The legal term is 'reasonable cause', and juries have a habit of leaning that way when there's no evidence to the contrary - which is why the D.A. decided not to prosecute this in the first place

That's for a jury to decide...not you or I. if it goes to trial.Nice uncredited wikipedia cut n' paste on your part, by the way.

You might also keep in mind that thanks to the circumstances I mentioned above, if it went to trial Zimmerman's lawyer would have an awfully good case that he would be unable to receive a fair trial at this point.